Hi!
> > > (This should efficiently be the same as the proposed big patch a year
> > > ago from Pekka Enberg, just a bit smaller and should make ACPICA and
> > > kernel/linux people happy:
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=113699535303722&w=2)
> >
> > No, you're keeping these obfuscating ma
Hello Thomas,
I'm delighted that you feel that the ACPI debug code is worthy
of being enabled by default in SuSE Linux. While that certainly
wasn't the intent of the code, I'm open to your suggestions should
you find any issues with it where it doesn't suite your needs.
However, I have no plans
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:49 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> The name of this patch is really "split ACPI function tracing
> out of CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG to a new Kconfig build option"
>
> I agree that tracing should be its own build option.
Thanks.
> I don't agree that enabling CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG by defaul
On Thursday 31 May 2007 14:57, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 5/31/07, Thomas Renninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (This should efficiently be the same as the proposed big patch a year
> > ago from Pekka Enberg, just a bit smaller and should make ACPICA and
> > kernel/linux people happy:
> > http://m
On 5/31/07, Thomas Renninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(This should efficiently be the same as the proposed big patch a year
ago from Pekka Enberg, just a bit smaller and should make ACPICA and
kernel/linux people happy:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=113699535303722&w=2)
No, you're keepin
The name of this patch is really "split ACPI function tracing
out of CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG to a new Kconfig build option"
I agree that tracing should be its own build option.
I don't agree that enabling CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG by default
is what you want to do in a production kernel, but that
isn't what th
6 matches
Mail list logo
